Kristie Dawn Stocks v. Michael Anthony Stocks, Sr., Deborah S. Oswalt, Michael L. Oswalt, and Betty Stocks

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/30/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080941 K r i s t i e Dawn Stocks v. M i c h a e l Anthony Stocks, Sr., Deborah S. Oswalt, M i c h a e l L. Oswalt, and B e t t y Stocks Appeal from Fayette C i r c u i t Court (DR-04-102) PER CURIAM. Kristie Stocks, Dawn S t o c k s ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d M i c h a e l A n t h o n y S r . ("the f a t h e r " ) , were m a r r i e d i n November 1997, a f t e r t h e b i r t h o f t h e i r f i r s t c h i l d , H u n t e r , i n A u g u s t 1997. Hunter i s a u t i s t i c . I n October 2000, t h e p a r e n t s had t h e i r 2080941 second c h i l d , Trey. Sadly, s p i n a l column i n May a wheelchair and b o t h H u n t e r and In children divorce 2001; has Trey September T r e y s u f f e r e d an he the of the the i s confined o n l y h i s r i g h t hand. children") 2002, remained w i t h s u r v i v e d , b u t he use ("the aneurysm i n h i s to Thus, have s p e c i a l n e e d s . parents mother. separated, The mother and sued the for from the f a t h e r i n August 2 0 0 4 ; however, a l t h o u g h mother s e c u r e d a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t the a the f a t h e r when he f a i l e d t o answer t h e c o m p l a i n t o r o t h e r w i s e d e f e n d t h e a c t i o n , that j u d g m e n t was set aside a c t i o n r e m a i n e d p e n d i n g on I n M a r c h 2008, t h e c o m p l a i n t and father's motion court's docket. f a t h e r f i l e d an answer t o t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the of the the trial the a counterclaim t e m p o r a r y ex p a r t e on order seeking children. t e m p o r a r y and The p l a c i n g the t h a t H u n t e r was Oswalt ("the paternal paternal uncle"), the trial t h e home o f t h e p a t e r n a l divorce entered court and alleged in his residing with Michael 2 L. Oswalt ordered t h a t Hunter g r a n d m o t h e r and a custody r e s i d i n g with Betty Stocks aunt") the permanent c h i l d r e n i n the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) and t h a t T r e y was in court f a t h e r ; h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r had counterclaim S. trial and that Trey ("the Debbie ("the remain remain 2080941 in t h e home o f t h e p a t e r n a l paternal uncle grandmother, aunt and t h e p a t e r n a l u n c l e (the the paternal are hereinafter referred aunt, to and t h e p a t e r n a l collectively as " t h e custodians"). The mother custody order custodians filed a moved and to dissolve amended t h e n moved j o i n t l y petition custodians seeking the temporary her divorce of parte complaint. to intervene custody ex The i n t h e a c t i o n and the children. The a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n h a d b e e n i n t h e home o f each child's respective that t h e mother custodian and t h e f a t h e r since September had, through 2007 and their actions, v o l u n t a r i l y r e l i n q u i s h e d the custody of the c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r respective custodians. counterclaim The f a t h e r i n response amended h i s answer a n d t o t h e mother's amended divorce complaint. On entered March 14, 2008, after a hearing, a pendente l i t e order addressing the t r i a l the temporary custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n custody joint dispute. That order awarded court the parents ofthe temporary l e g a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n and awarded t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother temporary physical 3 custody o f Hunter and t h e 2080941 paternal aunt and custody of Trey. the paternal uncle telephone v i s i t a t i o n care with Trey. a l s o awarded t h e mother Pursuant to the order, and t h e m o t h e r were r e q u i r e d o f t h e c h i l d r e n and t o c o o p e r a t e could v i s i t each other. to physical The o r d e r o u t l i n e d t h e v i s i t a t i o n a w a r d e d t o t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r ; t h e o r d e r custodians temporary The o r d e r to cooperate so t h a t the i n the the c h i l d r e n f u r t h e r r e q u i r e d the mother s u b m i t t o random d r u g s c r e e n s t h r o u g h t h e c o u r t referral office. The t r i a l on March court entered 25, jurisdiction 2008. a judgment d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s However, over the remaining the trial issues court retained between the p a r t i e s , which p r i m a r i l y i n v o l v e d the custody of the c h i l d r e n . 18, 2008, custodians the mother were in filed a contempt petition of court alleging On J u n e that the for violating the pendente l i t e order. U l t i m a t e l y , the t r i a l court h e l d a t r i a l on the custody the contempt and issues on 23, 2008. In the judgment r e s o l v i n g the custody i s s u e s , the trial c o u r t d e c l i n e d t o f i n d any p a r t y i n c o n t e m p t . further determined voluntarily that relinquished the mother custody 4 and of July The t r i a l the f a t h e r the children court had not to the 2080941 custodians because the arrangement f o r the care c h i l d r e n was i n t e n d e d b y a l l p a r t i e s t o have b e e n The j u d g m e n t f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n e d were unfit custody of t o have each custodians. visitation, The to mother temporary. t h a t t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r the custody child of the c h i l d r e n his and respective the father and a w a r d e d custodian or were awarded and t h e f a t h e r was o r d e r e d t o p a y c h i l d support. The m o t h e r was n o t e m p l o y e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l , trial of the court reserved j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e t o award c h i l d s u p p o r t t h e m o t h e r once she became e m p l o y e d . from The m o t h e r a p p e a l e d t h a t j u d g m e n t ; we d i s m i s s e d t h e a p p e a l as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n f r o m a n o n f i n a l judgment. App. 2009). After S t o c k s v. S t o c k s , 25 So. 3d 480 ( A l a . C i v . the d i s m i s s a l of the f i r s t appeal, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment a d d r e s s i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s of alimony final. did and p r o p e r t y division, The m o t h e r a p p e a l e d rendering f o r the second i t s judgment time. The f a t h e r not appeal. We n o t e findings a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t "[w]hen a t r i a l of f a c t b a s e d on e v i d e n c e appellate court w i l l b a s e d on t h o s e presented presume t h a t t h e t r i a l findings i s correct 5 c o u r t 'makes ore tenus, an c o u r t ' s judgment C.P. v . W.M., 837 2080941 So. 2d 860, 864 ( A l a . C i v . App. 794 So. 2d 345, 347 presumption 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B y a r s , (Ala. 2001)). i s well The b a s i s f o r t h e o r e t e n u s settled: " ' " T h i s p r e s u m p t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s unique p o s i t i o n to d i r e c t l y observe t h e w i t n e s s e s and t o a s s e s s t h e i r demeanor and credibility. This opportunity to observe witnesses i s e s p e c i a l l y important i n c h i l d - c u s t o d y c a s e s . 'In c h i l d c u s t o d y cases e s p e c i a l l y , t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f an attentive trial judge is of great i m p o r t a n c e . ' W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 402 So. 2d 1029, 1032 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . " "'Ex p a r t e Fann, T h i s c o u r t i s not to s u b s t i t u t e i t c o u r t . Ex p a r t e 1996).'" G.H. v. K.G., 909 So. 810 So. 2d 631, 633 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . a l l o w e d to reweigh the evidence or s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i a l B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322 ( A l a . 2d 206, 208-09 855 App. the present case, i n which I n a case like 2d 551, 555 2005) ( q u o t i n g E s t r a d a v. R e d f o r d , 2003)). So. ( A l a . C i v . App. (Ala. Civ. the b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s t o e s t a b l i s h f a c t s by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence, see Ex discussed infra, parte Terry, 494 So. 2d t h i s c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e 628 ( A l a . 1986), on a p p e a l w h e t h e r t h e r e e x i s t s e v i d e n c e i n the r e c o r d from which the t r i a l c o u r t could have concluded that the fact sought c l e a r l y and c o n v i n c i n g l y e s t a b l i s h e d . [Ms. 1060600, S e p t . 5, 2 0 0 8 ] ___ 6 So. t o be proved was See Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , 3d ___ , ___ ( A l a . 2008) 2080941 (quoting with approval KGS Steel, I n c . v. 2040526, J u n e 30, 2 0 0 6 ] ___ So. 3 d ___ , ___ 2006) McInish, [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ) ) . A f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e d e f a u l t d i v o r c e judgment i n 2004, the mother began a relationship with Edward " C h e t " Cannon. The m o t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Cannon r e s u l t e d i n t h e b i r t h o f her third child, Aislyn, i n January 2006. s l i g h t l y premature v i a a caesarean s e c t i o n case of acid reflux Aislyn was b o r n and had a s e v e r e as an i n f a n t ; she u n d e r w e n t s u r g e r y t o a s s i s t with that problem. The m o t h e r d e v e l o p e d c o m p l i c a t i o n s a f t e r A i s l y n ' s b i r t h and l a t e r s u f f e r e d a m i s c a r r i a g e i n J u l y 2006. An u l t r a s o u n d o f h e r abdomen a t t h a t t i m e showed some c y s t s t h a t w o u l d r e q u i r e s u r g i c a l r e m o v a l ; however, t h e mother h a d no h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n or medical insurance chose n o t t o seek f u r t h e r t r e a t m e n t . mother continued to suffer from a t t h e time and Over t h e next year, t h e health problems. She c o n t i n u e d t o have a b d o m i n a l p a i n a n d a l s o e x p e r i e n c e d p a i n f u l menstrual cycles. The f o l l o w i n g summer, i n A u g u s t 2007, t h e m o t h e r s o u g h t t r e a t m e n t o f a s p i d e r b i t e t o h e r f o o t a t t h e e m e r g e n c y room. During her follow-up v i s i t w i t h Dr. Jon Sanford, 7 t h e mother 2080941 discussed some o f h e r h e a l t h p r o b l e m s w i t h him, p a i n f u l m e n s t r u a l c y c l e s and Sanford discussed with continuing the mother undergoing a r a d i c a l hysterectomy. to Dr. S e p t e m b e r 20, Before assistance Dan Avery, who abdominal p a i n . the Dr. possibility of When t h e m o t h e r e x p r e s s e d f a v o r a b l e i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o c e d u r e , Dr. mother i n c l u d i n g her Sanford performed the r e f e r r e d the procedure on 2007. the mother underwent her of the paternal surgery, she sought aunt, m e n t i o n i n g to the the paternal a u n t t h e n e e d f o r someone t o t a k e c a r e o f t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g the surgery and the recovery aunt i n d i c a t e d t h a t the period afterward. c h i l d r e n w o u l d be a r r a n g e d f o r T r e y t o s t a y w i t h h e r and the p a t e r n a l grandmother. and, and d u r i n g her Lortab, two recovery The cared The f o r , and opiate-derived she pain she f o r Hunter to stay with mother underwent her period, paternal was surgery, prescribed Ultracet medications. Over the n e x t s e v e r a l months, t h e m o t h e r s u f f e r e d f r o m f u r t h e r h e a l t h i s s u e s and The complications. mother c o n t i n u e d to s u f f e r abdominal p a i n , which sometimes extreme, i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the h y s t e r e c t o m y . further medical examinations discovered 8 was After t h a t t h e m o t h e r had a 2080941 k i d n e y s t o n e , she u n d e r w e n t a p r o c e d u r e stone on removed, October 25, 2007. After t h e mother had another t o remove t h e k i d n e y the surgery kidney stone t o remove was internal h e m o r r h o i d s and t o remove h e r a p p e n d i x i n e a r l y November 2007. The as mother following was prescribed h e r November mother developed developed surgery. After a staph i n f e c t i o n , which s o r e s on h e r b u t t o c k s also Lortab sores and h e r r e c t a l on h e r arm a pain that medication surgery, resulted i n several and g e n i t a l and one the area. on h e r f a c e , She which l i k e l y r e s u l t e d f r o m h e r h a n d , w r i s t , o r arm c o m i n g i n c o n t a c t w i t h a s o r e w h i l e c l e a n s i n g i t and h e r h a v i n g t o u c h e d h e r f a c e without adequately s a n i t i z i n g the s k i n . two r o u n d s o f a n t i b i o t i c infection i n December Although i t was mother a l s o developed 2008. for treatment as a r e s u l t 2007 and J a n u a r y unrelated to an a b s c e s s e d The m o t h e r u n d e r w e n t her of the staph 2008. two s u r g e r i e s , the t o o t h i n M a r c h and April The m o t h e r s o u g h t t r e a t m e n t i n t h e e m e r g e n c y room t w i c e the pain resulting from prescriptions for antibiotics the abscess. She and f o r L o r t a b on b o t h received visits. The m o t h e r n e v e r s o u g h t t r e a t m e n t f r o m a d e n t i s t f o r h e r t o o t h abscess. 9 2080941 In late February 2008, t h e m o t h e r , Cannon, and A i s l y n moved i n t o a new r e s i d e n c e . custodians t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r e t u r n i n g home b e c a u s e h e r h e a l t h had improved; discouraged however, from having The m o t h e r d i s c u s s e d the mother said the children with the that she returned home was with e x c u s e s t h a t t h e y were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a w e d d i n g a n d t h a t t h e home w o u l d n o t be r e a d y f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , e s p e c i a l l y T r e y , until a l l the packing agreed t o wait the children b o x e s h a d been removed. The m o t h e r a f e w weeks t o be f u l l y u n p a c k e d a n d t o a l l o w t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e wedding as planned. However, i n M a r c h , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d h i s m o t i o n f o r c u s t o d y a n d the custodians moved t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n , and the c h i l d r e n were n e v e r r e t u r n e d t o t h e m o t h e r ' s custody. A t t h e t r i a l , w h i c h was h e l d i n J u l y 2008, t h e c u s t o d i a n s presented The e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e mother's a l l e g e d drug abuse. custodians mother their also presented had f a i l e d support paternal aunt to v i s i t between also testimony that the the children or to provide f o r September testified 2007 that and March t h e mother r e p o r t e d t h a t she h a d b e e n d i a g n o s e d w i t h According indicating to the custodians, 10 2008. had The falsely cancer. t h e m o t h e r h a d g i v e n them a 2080941 combined total o f $240 s i n c e a s s i s t i n the care September 2007 t o financially o f t h e c h i l d r e n . The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d she had n o t p r o v i d e d the custodians. much i n t h e way o f m o n e t a r y s u p p o r t t o However, t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d that p a i d f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m e d i c a t i o n s and d i a p e r s . the m o t h e r , she h a d o f f e r e d financial financial provided assistance assistance was e x h a u s t e d only t o be would ask the f a t h e r had o r when t h e y n e e d e d i t . The m o t h e r a l s o s t a t e d t h a t she f e l t of when t h e money t h a t she h a d According to t o l d by t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n s for that the t h a t i t was t i m e f o r t h e f a t h e r t o shoulder some financial responsibility children. The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n e a c h $534 p e r month i n S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s . She f o r the received explained t h a t she c a s h e d t h e b e n e f i t c h e c k s a n d t h a t she k e p t t h e money in the a safe a t h e r house. money She s a i d t h a t at times she n e e d e d when she h a d u s e d some o f i t t o pay b i l l s . The m o t h e r a l s o e x p l a i n e d t h a t she h a d u s e d some o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s money t o p u r c h a s e items to furnish their rooms i n t h e new house. The custodians presented evidence mother had t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r o p i a t e s 11 i n d i c a t i n g that the on f o u r drug screens 2080941 and t h a t she h a d a l s o t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r methamphetamine one drug screen. mother had had The paternal aunt also t e s t i f i e d that prescriptions that Trey refilled a t t h e p h a r m a c y i n November 2008. paternal aunt, the mother's actions r e f i l l a p r e s c r i p t i o n for a sedative that the d o c t o r had discontinued no longer the needed A c c o r d i n g to the i n h a v i n g the pharmacy f o r Trey d e s p i t e the f a c t t h e use of that particular d r u g caused the p a t e r n a l aunt c o n c e r n t h a t the mother might abusing drugs. In a d d i t i o n , the p a t e r n a l mother's weight loss staph-infection s o r e s had r a i s e d i n the p a t e r n a l the i n the aunt s a i d t h a t summer o f 2007 and s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r was on her be the alleged aunt's mind abusing drugs. R e g a r d i n g the mother's v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n , the p a t e r n a l aunt t e s t i f i e d t h a t the mother had v i s i t e d w i t h Trey a t o t a l o f e i g h t t i m e s b e t w e e n S e p t e m b e r 2007 and M a r c h 2008. The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d come t o h e r home t o v i s i t H u n t e r o n l y two t i m e s d u r i n g t h a t same s i x month p e r i o d ; h o w e v e r , t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r mother had v i s i t e d club facility paternal w i t h Hunter owned by grandmother the works. briefly paternal Both 12 twice aunt s a i d t h a t the at the and the p a t e r n a l health- at which the aunt the and 2080941 p a t e r n a l grandmother often very i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t s were s h o r t ; based on the paternal aunt's testimony, n e a r l y a l l t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t s were no more t h a n 20 m i n u t e s i n length, i f that long, and some were a mere 5 m i n u t e s . The p a t e r n a l a u n t a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d t a k e n T r e y t o v i s i t the mother f i v e or s i x t i m e s a t the mother's former and that inviting the mother had the paternal visited aunt and i n the driveway Trey inside on residence instead a l l but of one visit. The p a t e r n a l a u n t s a i d t h a t , once t h e m o t h e r was awarded t e l e p h o n e v i s i t s w i t h T r e y i n t h e M a r c h 2008 t e m p o r a r y custody order, once t h e m o t h e r t e l e p h o n e d T r e y 10 t i m e s i n M a r c h b u t in April. A c c o r d i n g to the p a t e r n a l t e l e p h o n e h i s mother. in M a r c h 2008, t h e m o t h e r h a d time Trey does Before the e n t r y of the temporary order telephoned the p a t e r n a l a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12 t i m e s ; t h e p a t e r n a l the aunt, only the mother d i s c u s s e d her b r i e f l y i n q u i r e d as t o t h e c h i l d r e n . aunt health said t h a t most o f problems The p a t e r n a l aunt and only grandmother s a i d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t t e l e p h o n e d h e r e v e n once t o c h e c k on H u n t e r . The mother a d m i t t e d l y d i d not telephone Hunter; h o w e v e r , H u n t e r i s a n o n v e r b a l a u t i s t i c c h i l d and any a t t e m p t s 13 2080941 t o communicate w i t h and serve t o a g i t a t e f r u s t r a t e him. The p a t e r n a l aunt a l s o t e s t i f i e d surrounding for him over t h e telephone about t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e mother's d e c i s i o n t o seek a s s i s t a n c e t h e c h i l d r e n i n S e p t e m b e r 2007. According caring to the paternal a u n t , the mother t e l e p h o n e d h e r , n e a r l y h y s t e r i c a l , and s t a t e d that The t e s t r e s u l t s had i n d i c a t e d that p a t e r n a l a u n t s a i d t h a t she went t o t h e m o t h e r ' s home a n d discussed with for children the According the t h e mother had c a n c e r . t h e mother h e r need f o r a s s i s t a n c e while to the paternal mother t h a t the mother underwent aunt, the paternal t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be c a r e d t h a t t h e mother s h o u l d aunt i n caring surgery. reassured f o r and s t a t e d f o c u s on g e t t i n g b e t t e r . The p a t e r n a l aunt s a i d t h a t , over t h e n e x t few months, the mother continued t o r e p o r t t h a t she had l a t e - s t a g e c a n c e r and t h a t i t had been discovered i n places like t h e mother's l i v e r a n d one o f h e r kidneys. When t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t s e e n an o n c o l o g i s t o r begun any of cancer type family became treatment, said suspicious about m o t h e r h e r s e l f d i d n o t deny t h a t t h e mother's she had t o l d a u n t t h a t she h a d b e e n d i a g n o s e d w i t h 14 the paternal aunt, the claims. The the paternal c a n c e r ; she a l s o never 2080941 testified that she h a d made s t a t e m e n t s to that e f f e c t . Dr. S a n f o r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had n o t been d i a g n o s e d with cancer. As outlined above, the mother presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she h a d , i n f a c t , s u f f e r e d f r o m s e v e r a l h e a l t h problems i n the f a l l o f 2007 and i n t o e a r l y 2008. admitted having tested p o s i t i v e f o r opiates The m o t h e r on M a r c h 7, 2 0 0 8 , M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 , A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , and May 8, 2008. F o r each of t h o s e p o s i t i v e s c r e e n s , t h e m o t h e r s a i d , she h a d p r o v i d e d t h e court referral only positive adequately office a valid drug-screen explain was p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r Lortab. result the the mother April 10, 2008, i n d i c a t e d t h a t she h a d i n g e s t e d said that she h a d t a k e n could screen methamphetamine. The not that The m o t h e r some s a m p l e s o f an a n t i h i s t a m i n e or s i n u s m e d i c a t i o n p r o v i d e d by Dr. S a n f o r d a r o u n d t h a t t i m e ; she i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h a t m e d i c a t i o n m i g h t have c a u s e d t h e s c r e e n t o show a false positive f o r methamphetamine. However, the c u s t o d i a n s p r e s e n t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Danny J e n k i n s , a member of the 24th Judicial Circuit D r u g T a s k F o r c e ; he testified t h a t he knew o f no o t h e r d r u g t h a t m i g h t l e a d t o a p o s i t i v e result f o r methamphetamine on a d r u g 15 screen. 2080941 The mother tested negative f o r a l l substances s e v e n d r u g s c r e e n s she t o o k b e t w e e n t h e May s c r e e n and t h e J u l y 2008 t r i a l . of Dr. S a n f o r d , who pain medication and Sanford the during m o t h e r was any medical testified the 8, 2 0 0 8 , p o s i t i v e p r e s e n t e d the testimony opined t h a t the mother's p r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r September, December 2007 were w a r r a n t e d pain She on b a s e d upon t h e procedures t h a t he October, had she had s e e n no November, severity of undergone. indications and her Dr. that the a b u s i n g i l l e g a l d r u g s and t h a t he had n o t w i t n e s s e d drug-seeking behavior from her. Dr. Sanford indicated t h a t , a t t i m e s , an a n t i d e p r e s s a n t d r u g m i g h t c a u s e a p o s i t i v e result f o r amphetamine on a d r u g Regarding her lack of m o t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t she surgery d u r i n g October avoided contact infection with and the i n November and screen. visits was very with the November 2007 children because December 2007. the recovering i l l and children, from and that of she her According had staph to the m o t h e r , she had been a d v i s e d t o a v o i d t h e c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e o f the possibility infection from that her. the Dr. children Sanford, might when contract a staph questioned about w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r c o u l d have been a r o u n d t h e c h i l d r e n w h i l e 16 2080941 infected with precluded staph, from b e i n g indicated around the that the mother c h i l d r e n but was not t h a t she would have n e e d e d t o t a k e e x t r a p r e c a u t i o n s , l i k e w e a r i n g g l o v e s f o c u s i n g on c l e a n l i n e s s , t o a v o i d c o n t a m i n a t i o n . the paternal occasion a u n t , the mother did v i s i t with i n December w h i l e w e a r i n g a mask and The mother indicated that she had and According Trey on to one gloves. requested additional v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n a f t e r the e n t r y of the March 14, 2008, pendente was never allowed lite custody t o keep the order. She said that c h i l d r e n longer o r t o p i c k them e a r l i e r t h a n p e r m i t t e d by t h e o r d e r . She in expanded addition to failing to allow she also t e s t i f i e d that, or additional v i s i t a t i o n , t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t and t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r failed to keep a p p o i n t m e n t s and to keep her including her informed of the children's changes i n t h e i r m e d i c a t i o n s informed failing to and about the children's school have her included in the i n d i v i d u a l i z e d educational plan ("IEP") meetings. from Mary Gravalee, the special-education F a y e t t e C o u n t y , i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was the most recent IEP meetings 17 because up the had doctor's had failed progress, children's Testimony coordinator for not i n c l u d e d i n school system 2080941 understood children that t h e mother a t the time. d i d n o t have specifically When custody questioned about had j o i n t legal whether she h a d r e a l i z e d custody of the c h i l d r e n , Gravalee Gravalee's testimony that t h e mother of the answered i n t h e n e g a t i v e . further indicated t h a t t h e mother had been v e r y i n v o l v e d i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l i e r I E P m e e t i n g s and had kept monitor close contact with the children's teachers t o the c h i l d r e n ' s progress including Rita Community Sanford, Richardson, Service Trey's Programs i n school. the county o f West kindergarten witnesses, coordinator f o r Alabama, teacher, m o t h e r was i n v o l v e d w i t h h e r c h i l d r e n . Other and J e n n i f e r testified Ms. S a n f o r d that the recalled t h a t t h e m o t h e r w o u l d come e a t l u n c h w i t h T r e y v e r y o f t e n a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was a v a i l a b l e f o r p a r e n t - t e a c h e r m e e t i n g s , h a d f r e q u e n t t e l e p h o n e c o n t a c t w i t h Ms. S a n f o r d , a n d h a d e x c h a n g e d notes back and f o r t h regularly regarding Trey's progress. R i c h a r d s o n e x p l a i n e d t h a t she had v i s i t e d t h e mother's former home on two o c c a s i o n s , a n d s h e n o t e d t h a t i t was a p p r o p r i a t e for both Richardson children, noted about Hunter's clean, and t h a t t h e mother wheel-chair seemed v e r y accessible. knowledgeable n e e d s a s an a u t i s t i c c h i l d a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r 18 2080941 appeared very proactive Hunter's educational and wanted plan. to raise Richardson concerns about said that t h e mother a p p e a r e d t o be a v e r y g o o d m o t h e r t h a t was a l w a y s s e e k i n g o u t ways to improve the children's environment and their lifestyle. Regarding the a l l e g a t i o n s o f drug abuse, the strongest evidence supporting "problems" with o u t l i n e d above. the determination d r u g s were Department t h e mother had the p o s i t i v e drug-screen results Other testimony a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d that the mother d i d n o t e x h i b i t s i g n s a that o f Human o f d r u g abuse. Resources child Jackie abuse and Estevan, neglect a s s e s s o r , r e s p o n d e d t o a r e p o r t o f s u s p e c t e d d r u g abuse by t h e m o t h e r b y m a k i n g an u n a n n o u n c e d v i s i t t o t h e m o t h e r ' s home on April 2 9 , 2008. anything home. Estevan testified that she d i d n o t see t h a t made h e r t h i n k t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d d r u g s i n t h e She a l s o said that neither Cannon n o r t h e mother a p p e a r e d t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a n y d r u g a t t h e t i m e o f the visit. However, at Estevan's request, t h e mother and Cannon u n d e r w e n t d r u g s c r e e n s ; t h e m o t h e r t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r amphetamines instituted and o p i a t e s . a safety plan Because o f those r e s u l t s , Estevan f o r A i s l y n that 19 relied on Cannon's 2080941 mother f o r the care of Aislyn b e c a u s e o f h i s work s c h e d u l e . when Cannon was The m o t h e r unavailable requested that the d r u g - s c r e e n r e s u l t s be f u r t h e r b r o k e n down b e c a u s e s h e h a d a valid prescription f o r hydrocodone; according to Estevan, " t h a t c h e c k e d o u t , " a n d t h e s a f e t y p l a n was c o n c l u d e d , p a r t l y because t h e mother had p a s s e d o t h e r d r u g s c r e e n s and p a r t l y b e c a u s e Cannon was no l o n g e r w o r k i n g t h e n i g h t s h i f t a n d was available t o provide care f o r A i s l y n . J e n k i n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he v i s i t e d t h e m o t h e r ' s accompanied by E s t e v a n , i n l a t e Spring 2008 residence, after atip r e g a r d i n g t h e mother's b e i n g i n v o l v e d i n the manufacture o f methamphetamine. he Jenkins said that looked around the h o u s e , a c c o m p a n i e d b y C a n n o n , a n d t h a t he f o u n d no e v i d e n c e t h a t methamphetamine h a d e v e r been m a n u f a c t u r e d i n t h e h o u s e . He n o t e d t h a t methamphetamine labs leave a strong o d o r , w h i c h he d i d n o t d e t e c t i n t h e m o t h e r ' s chemical home. The m o t h e r a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding custody to the paternal grandmother and to the p a t e r n a l aunt and t h e p a t e r n a l u n c l e b e c a u s e , she a r g u e s , t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l she i s u n f i t . court's conclusion that The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t does f i n d t h e m o t h e r 20 2080941 unfit and specifically references that "problems" w i t h both p r e s c r i p t i o n drugs In addition, the t r i a l had a n d methamphetamine. had e x h i b i t e d p o o r j u d g m e n t when s h e t o l d t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t that was not. Finally, noted mother t h e mother she was s u f f e r i n g f r o m court the late-stage t h e judgment that c a n c e r when s h e , i n f a c t , referenced t h e mother's f a i l u r e t o provide f i n a n c i a l support f o r e i t h e r c h i l d d e s p i t e the fact Security In that t h e mother received the children's Social benefits. a case considering nonparents, such whether as t h i s to i t i s required o n e , where award the t r i a l custody t o determine of court i s children whether clear to and convincing evidence e s t a b l i s h e s the u n f i t n e s s o f the parents. Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d 628 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . "'In a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e between a p a r e n t a n d a n o n p a r e n t , t h e p a r e n t has a prima f a c i e r i g h t t o custody o f h i s or her c h i l d . Ex p a r t e D.J., 645 So. 2d 303 ( A l a . 1994). U n l e s s t h e t r i a l c o u r t f i n d s t h a t the p a r e n t i s u n f i t , o r t h a t t h e p a r e n t has v o l u n t a r i l y r e l i n q u i s h e d custody of the c h i l d , o r t h a t t h e p a r e n t has l o s t custody of t h e c h i l d b y v i r t u e o f a p r i o r o r d e r , the law presumes t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d w i l l be s e r v e d b y g i v i n g t h e p a r e n t c u s t o d y . Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d 628 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; Ex p a r t e Mathews, 428 So. 2d 58 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; E.C.B. v. J . S . , 612 So. 21 2080941 2d 1243 Colburn, 1988).' ( A l a . C i v . App. 522 So. 2d 290 "'D.P.M. v. D.B., 1 9 9 5 ) . ... 1 9 9 2 ) ; Roden v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 669 So. 2d 191, 193 ( A l a . C i v . App. "... T h a t f i n d i n g o f u n f i t n e s s must be s u p p o r t e d by clear and convincing evidence. Ex parte B e r r y h i l l , 410 So. 2d 416, 417 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ; Ex p a r t e S u l l i v a n , 407 So. 2d 559, 563 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; see a l s o r'T^-:^^^ - D s - ^ ^ ^ r - . XT ncn 7 \ i o c; T OCA TO a i n p a r e n t o f t h e r i g h t t o t h e c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d must be positive, and not merely comparative or speculative, and must be shown by clear and H o r n v. H o r n , (first 879 So. 2d 1197, 1201-02 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) emphasis added; f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . The mother evidence tested indicated that indicated positive the for mother that on several opiates. obtained The two occasions evidence also prescriptions L o r t a b f o r t o o t h a c h e s i n M a r c h 2008, w i t h t h e s e c o n d and p r e s c r i p t i o n b e i n g f i l l e d on M a r c h 30. the for final The m o t h e r c h a n g e d h e r t e s t i m o n y t h r e e t i m e s r e g a r d i n g when she t o o k t h e l a s t o f t h e prescribed took the painkillers; last of those she testified painkillers s e c o n d , o r t h e l a s t week o f A p r i l . 22 that either she in thought the she first, The m o t h e r t e s t e d p o s i t i v e 2080941 for opiates on May 8, 2008, as much as f o u r weeks a f t e r s h e took the l a s t of the p a i n k i l l e r s her toothache. for p r e s c r i b e d on M a r c h 30 f o r The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n was no more t h a n 10 L o r t a b ; thus, r e j e c t e d the mother's testimony the t r i a l court t h a t her p o s i t i v e drug was t h e r e s u l t o f h e r p r o p e r u s e o f a p r e s c r i b e d Likewise, t h e mother's excuse methamphetamine court. could also could have screen painkiller. for testing positive for have b e e n r e j e c t e d by t h e trial The m o t h e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d t h a t a s a m p l e antihistamine or sinus medication she had r e c e i v e d f r o m Dr. S a n f o r d m i g h t h a v e c a u s e d a f a l s e p o s i t i v e on t h e s c r e e n . custodians, however, presented testimony from Jenkins, member o f t h e l o c a l d r u g t a s k f o r c e , t h a t he knew o f no drug that would show up methamphetamine on a d r u g The developed mother a argues "problem" as a false positive trial court's that, with even drugs, determination custody of the c h i l d r e n . So. a other for screen. assuming that t h e mere fact t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r drugs i s not alone s u f f i c i e n t the The that she had that she to uphold she i s u n f i t t o have She r e l i e s on W e s t e r v. W e s t e r , 500 2d 1106, 1107 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , i n w h i c h t h i s 23 court 2080941 h e l d t h a t a f a t h e r ' s use of m a r i j u a n a , a l t h o u g h i l l e g a l , not The alone sufficient Wester demonstrate court that to support indicated a modification that the father's The mother p o i n t s children when out that she t e s t e d of custody. the evidence admitted periodic detrimentally affected the c h i l d . Wester, was d i d not drug use 500 So. 2d a t 1107. s h e d i d n o t have c u s t o d y o f t h e positive evidence d i d not demonstrate f o r drugs and t h a t the t h a t any p o s s i b l e d r u g a b u s e on her p a r t d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d the c h i l d r e n . Although use o f an the illicit substance alone might that a parent i s u n f i t , the t r i a l n o t compel conclusion court based i t s d e c i s i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e on s e v e r a l f a c t o r s , o n l y one o f w h i c h was t h e m o t h e r ' s "problem" The had trial with court e x h i b i t e d poor drugs. a l s o r e l i e d on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m o t h e r j u d g m e n t when s h e t o l d t h a t she had been d i a g n o s e d w i t h f a c t , b e e n so d i a g n o s e d . the paternal c a n c e r when s h e h a d n o t , i n The m o t h e r a r g u e s , r e l y i n g on A.L. v. S . J . , 827 So. 2d 828, 834 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , t h a t j u d g m e n t on t h e p a r t deprive aunt poor of a parent i s not alone s u f f i c i e n t to a parent of custody. A l t h o u g h t h e mother i s c o r r e c t t h a t A.L. s t a n d s f o r t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t 24 2080941 r e l y s o l e l y on t h e m o t h e r ' s l a p s e i n j u d g m e n t t o c o n c l u d e t h a t she is unfit. We must d e t e r m i n e , then, whether the t h i s case, viewed w i t h the attendant the trial evidence court's presumptions i n favor f i n d i n g s , amount t o supporting the trial 909 finding So. of 2d 206, unfitness presented, in based favor evidence, viewed conclusion that of one the on the the court's supports m o t h e r had See the G.H. the v. (affirming a the evidence because of findings). the "problems" that trial the The court's with prescription positive results conclusion t h a t t h e m o t h e r t o l d t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t t h a t she was diagnosed cancer diagnosed. despite The trial the evidence a l s o supports on a with The of conflicting, trial way, totality methamphetamine, b a s e d on s e v e r a l drug screens. children. 2005) of convincing conclusion ( A l a . C i v . App. when t h e e v i d e n c e was presumption d r u g s and 209 c l e a r and court's m o t h e r i s u n f i t t o have c u s t o d y o f h e r K.G., combined f a c t s i n fact that c o u r t a l s o had she had not been ample e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the mother d i d not c o n s i s t e n t l y v i s i t w i t h check on largely the been c h i l d r e n , even resolved. a f t e r her Likewise, 25 so the health problems evidence supports or had a 2080941 conclusion that t h e mother cashed, retained, and, a t times, used t h e c h i l d r e n ' s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y d i s a b i l i t y checks o f p r o v i d i n g t h a t money t o t h e c u s t o d i a n s instead f o r use i n t h e care of t h e c h i l d r e n . However, appropriate children as t h e t r i a l temporary i n the face h e a l t h problems. picture of a arrangements found, t h e mother f o r the care of her s i g n i f i c a n t and made of her debilitating A large p o r t i o n of the evidence painted the mother s c h o o l i n g and t h e care The court who h a d been very involved of both of her special-needs i n the children. mother t e s t i f i e d o f h e r l o v e f o r h e r c h i l d r e n and c a l l e d them h e r " h e a r t . " When q u e s t i o n e d on t h e m a t t e r , n e i t h e r t h e p a t e r n a l aunt nor t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was a b a d p a r e n t . always made paternal sure aunt Both t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had the children testified that were clothed she had never and f e d . The witnessed the mother p h y s i c a l l y m i s t r e a t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n . The o n l y basis t h a t t h e mother was f o rthe paternal unfit grandmother's o p i n i o n was h e r c o n c e r n about t h e mother's h a v i n g stated tested p o s i t i v e f o r methamphetamine. Even considering the fact that 26 t h e m o t h e r h a d b e e n an 2080941 i n v o l v e d and does n o t the c a r i n g m o t h e r , we clearly mother problems is unfit convincingly at this evidence support a conclusion time. The mother's a p p e a r t o h a v e r e s u l t e d i n what m i g h t be prescription medication mother even use abuse resolved, minimal contact with c h i l d r e n u n t i l she was g i v e n v i s i t a t i o n i n t h e M a r c h 14, pendente l i t e She order. n e v e r once t e l e p h o n e d t h e g r a n d m o t h e r t o c h e c k on H u n t e r . children's children of illegal t o have o n l y the health of continued and that E v e n once h e r h e a l t h p r o b l e m s had b e e n substances. the and cannot agree t h a t the needs, instead keeping the of She providing those received benefits a s s i s t a n c e to the c h i l d r e n ' s c u s t o d i a n s . as 2008, paternal f a i l e d to provide b e n e f i t s she her f o r the for the financial The m o t h e r ' s a c t i o n s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f h e r c h i l d r e n , and, t h u s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t had a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r i t s u n f i t n e s s finding. The failing failing mother to find next the argues that custodians the in trial court contempt of t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e m o t h e r and 27 court for f a i l i n g the mother a p p r i s e d of the c h i l d r e n ' s m e d i c a l issues. erred and to in for keep educational 2080941 "[WJhether a p a r t y i s i n contempt o f c o u r t i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n committed t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f the t r i a l c o u r t , a n d , a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n o r u n l e s s t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e so as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g , t h i s c o u r t w i l l a f f i r m . " Stack v. Stack, 646 So. 2 d 5 1 , 56 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ; s e e also Hammock v. Hammock, 867 So. 2d 355, 359-60 App. 2003). The mother argues that the t r i a l d i s c r e t i o n by n o t f i n d i n g t h e c u s t o d i a n s the evidence court (Ala. Civ. abused i t s i n contempt d e s p i t e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t they had n o t i n c l u d e d t h e mother i n any o f t h e d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m e d i c a l care or e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n s . The m o t h e r a l s o p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e custodians to allow had f a i l e d her additional o r expanded v i s i t s d e s p i t e h e r r e q u e s t s a n d t h a t many t e l e p h o n e placed t o Trey mother's evidence were accusations either of forwarded contempt o r unanswered. were not supported The by regarding s p e c i f i c incidents but instead consisted of l a r g e l y g e n e r a l i z e d complaints of c a l l s she cooperation. regarding the custodians lack 1 To t h e e x t e n t t h e m o t h e r s o u g h t a f i n d i n g o f c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t t o p u n i s h t h e c u s t o d i a n s , s e e R u l e 70A(a) (2) (C) ( i i ) , Ala. R. C i v . P. ( " ' C r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t ' means ... [ w ] i l l f u l d i s o b e d i e n c e o r r e s i s t a n c e o f any p e r s o n t o a c o u r t ' s l a w f u l 1 28 2080941 The p a t e r n a l aunt t e s t i f i e d medications she when t h e d o c t o r s admitted t h a t she had changed T r e y ' s h a d made t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , a n d t h a t s h e d i d n o t i n f o r m t h e m o t h e r when s h e t o o k Trey t o h i s regular doctor visits. Gravalee t e s t i f i e d that t h e m o t h e r was n o t i n v i t e d t o t h e r e c e n t I E P m e e t i n g s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t have custodial rights; Gravalee received that information. that d i d not t e s t i f y from whom s h e The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d s h e d i d n o t t h i n k i t was n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c u s s Hunter's d a i l y care w i t h t h e mother. The trial contemptuously order. court determined that disobeyed the t r i a l the custodians court's had not pendente lite The e v i d e n c e d i d n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e custodians had p u r p o s e f u l l y excluded decisions regarding the children. t h e mother f r o m any G r a v a l e e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w r i t , s u b p o e n a , p r o c e s s , o r d e r , r u l e , o r command, where t h e dominant purpose o f t h e f i n d i n g o f contempt i s t o p u n i s h t h e c o n t e m n o r . " ) , a n d E x p a r t e K i n g , 263 A l a . 487, 490, 83 So. 2 d 241, 244 (1955) ('"A c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t i s one i n w h i c h t h e purpose o f the proceeding i s t o impose p u n i s h m e n t f o r d i s o b e d i e n c e t o t h e o r d e r s o f t h e c o u r t . ' " ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e H i l l , 229 A l a . 5 0 1 , 5 0 3 , 158 So. 5 3 1 , 532 ( 1 9 3 5 ) ) ) , we n o t e that " t o support a finding of criminal contempt, t h e c o n t e m p t u o u s a c t i o n s must be s p e c i f i c a n d i d e n t i f i a b l e . " K.T.W.P. v . D.R.W., 721 So. 2 d 699, 702 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . 29 2080941 understood that children; the however, custodians had mother that no longer evidence provided Gravalee r e g a r d i n g the mother's r i g h t s . had not did the custody prove incorrect of the that the information L i k e w i s e , the mother's g e n e r a l c o m p l a i n t s about not b e i n g a p p r i s e d of the c h i l d r e n ' s m e d i c a l c a r e do n o t s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n s a c t e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r by t a k i n g t h e c h i l d r e n t o doctor's appointments or by following the recommendations of the c h i l d r e n ' s d o c t o r s . the pendente lite order permitted instructions Finally, the mother or although additional v i s i t a t i o n a t " m u t u a l l y a g r e e d upon t i m e s , " t h e o r d e r d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h a t the c u s t o d i a n s a l l o w a d d i t i o n a l v i s i t a t i o n ; thus, t h e m o t h e r ' s argument t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n s v i o l a t e d t h e order by f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l o r e x p a n d e d v i s i t a t i o n i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e l a n g u a g e i n t h e o r d e r . the t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by custodians The have a cannot agree t h a t failing to f i n d the court d i d not i n contempt. mother finally compelling under former a custody We argues t h a t the reason caselaw, was to separate trial the children, r e q u i r e d when a t r i a l order separating s i b l i n g s . 30 See A.B. court which, entered v. J.B., [Ms. 2080941 2080078, December 18, 2009] App. t o A.B., 2009). holds that concludes, the at According siblings b a s e d on separation w i l l issue." divided may custodians serve each performed special that the fact Civ. c a s e l a w more a c c u r a t e l y i f the trial court record, that i n t e r e s t s of the at . between The (Ala. evidence i n the 3d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e charge. needs, , separated the best So. children have be 3d "our sufficient A.B., the So. the The mother custodians, admirably children as herself and the caretakers for f a c t t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n b o t h have the testimony indicated that H u n t e r and t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r s h a r e d a s p e c i a l bond, and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t had b e e n i n v o l v e d i n a s s i s t i n g in T r e y ' s c a r e by t a k i n g him assuming custody conclusion separate 2007. very in t h a t the September 2007 c h i l d r e n w o u l d be homes i n w h i c h t h e y had The trial well in their court t h a t the 31 best both r e s p e c t i v e homes. f a u l t y because i t separated would been l i v i n g found t h a t w i t h the mother's c o n t e n t i o n is to p h y s i c a l therapy the since before a l l support cared for in since the September c h i l d r e n were Thus, we a cannot doing agree trial court's judgment siblings in this case. 2080941 The m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without writing. Moore, J . , concurs i n part, i n p a r t and d i s s e n t s writing. 32 with 2080941 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n part and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t . I c o n c u r as t o t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e m a i n o p i n i o n a f f i r m i n g the judgment the o f the t r i a l custodians with i n s o f a r as i t r e f u s e d to hold of the c h i l d r e n i n contempt of c o u r t . the i m p l i e d holding c o u r t had s u b j e c t - m a t t e r between court the p a r t i e s , but i n the main opinion jurisdiction I dissent that I agree the over the custody as t o t h a t trial dispute p o r t i o n of the main o p i n i o n a f f i r m i n g the judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t i n s o f a r as i t found children the to the mother unfit and awarded custody of the custodians. Jurisdiction Before addressing awarding custody must f i r s t an determine f o r i t s e l f appeal. J.B. v. A judgment matter jurisdiction The matter trial (Official A.B., entered dispute, Recomp.) see So. and enter will 528 court not a judgment circuit 33 1901, court court supports (Ala. Civ. without support App. subject- an appeal. c o u r t , g e n e r a l l y has A l a . Const. ("The 2d by a l o w e r a circuit to this whether t h a t judgment 8 88 i s void court, jurisdiction custody of the judgment of the c h i l d r e n to the c u s t o d i a n s , 2004). Id. the substantive aspects subject- resolving a child- A r t . IV, 142(b) shall § exercise general 2080941 jurisdiction by law."); matter because, i n a l l cases however, a jurisdiction by jurisdiction except circuit to juvenile over p e t i t i o n s See court otherwise does adjudicate statute, has been a l l e g e d . a s may a former a valid depends whether In parents' they upon dispute or purported dependency March of the 2008, pending to decide the custodians relinquished and the custody exclusive a c i r c u i t court, a controversy child 1975. 2 entered i t adjudicated moved d i v o r c e a c t i o n and f i l e d things, that de f a c t o c u s t o d i a n s o f t h e c h i l d r e n mother have petition a pure regarding children. a l l e g e d , among o t h e r the subject- § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code case, the have i n which the dependency of a court i n this custody provided dependency courts Whether the t r i a l judgment not be father to intervene complaints they i n the i n which had a c t e d as t h e s i n c e S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 7 , when had allegedly to the custodians, voluntarily and S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 ( a ) has b e e n amended and r e n u m b e r e d as § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "A j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l e x e r c i s e exclusive o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of j u v e n i l e court proceedings i n which a c h i l d i s a l l e g e d t o h a v e c o m m i t t e d a d e l i n q u e n t a c t , t o be d e p e n d e n t , o r t o be i n n e e d o f s u p e r v i s i o n . " See A c t No. 2 0 0 8 - 2 7 7 , § 3, A l a . A c t s 2008 ( e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 2 0 0 9 ) . However, f o r m e r § 12-15-30(a) a p p l i e d at the time of the f i l i n g of the complaints i n intervention. 2 34 2080941 "10. That both c h i l d r e n a r e w i t h o u t a p a r e n t o r guardian able to provide f o r the child's support, t r a i n i n g or education. "11. That t h e p a r e n t s of the children are unable t o d i s c h a r g e t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and f o r them. "12. That t h e c h i l d r e n are without proper parental care and control necessary f o r the children's well being because of the faults or habits of the parents or t h e i r neglect or r e f u s a l , when a b l e t o do s o t o p r o v i d e t h e m . " The f o r e g o i n g numbered former § 12-15-1(10)b., allegations k., a n d j. fall within the ambit of 3 A t the time t h e c u s t o d i a n s f i l e d t h e i r complaints i n i n t e r v e n t i o n , f o r m e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 ( 1 0 ) , A l a . Code 1975, d e f i n e d a " d e p e n d e n t c h i l d " as a c h i l d : 3 " a . Who, f o r any r e a s o n i s d e s t i t u t e , h o m e l e s s , o r d e p e n d e n t on t h e p u b l i c f o r s u p p o r t ; o r "b. Who i s w i t h o u t a p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n a b l e t o provide f o r the child's support, training, or education; or " c . Whose c u s t o d y i s t h e s u b j e c t o f c o n t r o v e r s y ; or "d. Whose home, b y r e a s o n o f n e g l e c t , c r u e l t y , o r d e p r a v i t y on t h e p a r t o f t h e p a r e n t , p a r e n t s , g u a r d i a n , o r o t h e r p e r s o n i n whose c a r e t h e c h i l d may b e , i s an u n f i t a n d i m p r o p e r p l a c e f o r t h e c h i l d ; or "e. Whose p a r e n t , p a r e n t s , g u a r d i a n , o r o t h e r c u s t o d i a n n e g l e c t s o r r e f u s e s , when a b l e t o do s o o r when s u c h s e r v i c e i s o f f e r e d w i t h o u t c h a r g e , t o 35 2080941 provide or allow medical, s u r g i c a l , or other care necessary f o r the c h i l d ' s h e a l t h or well-being; or " f . Who i s i n a c o n d i t i o n o r s u r r o u n d i n g s o r i s under improper or i n s u f f i c i e n t guardianship or control as t o e n d a n g e r t h e m o r a l s , health, or general welfare of the c h i l d ; or "g. Who has guardianship; or "h. Whose custodian f a i l s , c h i l d to school i compulsory school no proper parental care or parent, parents, guardian, or r e f u s e s , or n e g l e c t s t o send t h e n accordance w i t h t h e terms o f t h e attendance laws o f t h i s s t a t e ; o r " i . Who h a s b e e n a b a n d o n e d b y t h e parents, guardian, or other custodian; or child's " j . Who i s p h y s i c a l l y , m e n t a l l y , o r e m o t i o n a l l y abused by t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s , g u a r d i a n , o r o t h e r c u s t o d i a n o r who i s w i t h o u t p r o p e r p a r e n t a l c a r e a n d c o n t r o l necessary f o r the c h i l d ' s w e l l - b e i n g because of the f a u l t s or h a b i t s of the c h i l d ' s parents, guardian, or other custodian or t h e i r neglect or r e f u s a l , when a b l e t o do s o , t o p r o v i d e them; o r are and "k. Whose p a r e n t s , g u a r d i a n , o r o t h e r c u s t o d i a n unable t o discharge t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o f o r the c h i l d ; or " l . Who h a s b e e n p l a c e d f o r c a r e o r a d o p t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n of the law; or "m. Who f o r a n y o t h e r c a u s e i s i n n e e d o f t h e care and p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e ; and "n. I n any o f t h e f o r e g o i n g , i s i n n e e d o f c a r e or s u p e r v i s i o n . " 36 2080941 In a J.W. juvenile petition court exercised had ( A l a . C i v . App. great-aunt maternal v . N.K.M., 999 S o . 2 d 526 proper abandoned custody 542. that alleged she and custody the c h i l d of the c h i l d This entire in other and c a r e a family over filed members a child court agreed that intended. a child in had whose a n d w h o s e m o t h e r was u n f i t as t h e mother 2008), a long mother t o resume 999 S o . 2 d a t i s alleged t o be dependent o n l y i f , i n a d d i t i o n t o the c i r c u m s t a n c e s s e t out i n subsections is also required a. t h r o u g h alleged by former m a j o r i t y reasoned which j., and t o be m. of former " i n need § 12-15-1(10), of care § 12-15-1(10)n. child or s u p e r v i s i o n " 999 S o . 2 d a t 5 3 2 . that the maternal great-aunt's t r a c k e d the language the as The allegations, of former § 12-15-1(10)c., i., and a l o n g w i t h t h e p r a y e r t h a t t h e c h i l d be d e c l a r e d d e p e n d e n t that relatives the child's implied that custody be the c h i l d awarded was to " i n need the of maternal care or By A c t No. 2 0 0 8 - 2 7 7 , A l a . A c t s 2008, t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e f o r m e r A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, were e i t h e r r e p e a l e d o r amended, r e n u m b e r e d , and i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e c u r r e n t A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ( " t h e A J J A " ) , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. Former § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 ( 1 0 ) h a s b e e n amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d as § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e A J J A i s J a n u a r y 1, 2009; t h e r e f o r e , § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s case. 37 2080941 s u p e r v i s i o n , " so to confer 999 So. custody did at the of not by case, as in that reasoning seeking the the were " i n need of the unlike the care or to be which, when unfitness i s the that an then, would requested the the the children meaning with former implied have adjudicate facts custodians coupled under case, court and the supervision" within j . , w o u l d amount t o juvenile i n J.W., children, implied and If that alleged custodians, 1(10)b., jurisdiction court. suggests t h a t the parental a juvenile and dependent. of only child declared allegations dependency. the custodians children 12-15-1(10)n., k., on the dependency s t a t u t e f r o m J.W. c u s t o d y of § J.W., c h i l d r e n , but, request former jurisdiction language of the However, the dependency of 533. this tracking to a l l e g e the subject-matter 2d In as their § 12-15- a l l e g a t i o n of consistent had complaints of with J.W., subject-matter filed by the custodians. I dissented relative care and alleges custody continuation of in J.W. that of that he a because or she child I has and custody 38 maintained due been he to or that exercising she the is when a proper seeking abandonment a or 2080941 unfitness of the implication c h i l d ' s parents, that the child supervision." 999 So. allegations not state but simply child, do a dispute which of our 61 (Ala. Civ. allegations App. 2008) custodians By a l l e g i n g that children of c u s t o d y due to the over the falls J., dissent in merely six unfitness of the and proper care and they supervision, 544, 560¬ construe facto by parents custody by the filed dispute. custody that of the best continuing that and the the providing any voluntary mother, the the children implication o r s u p e r v i s i o n " due circumstances. 39 2d custody thereby negating and the (Moore, in intervention claiming c h i l d r e n were " i n need of care conduct a t 542 I served were those subject-matter So. J.W., by of the children's that 999 that or c u s t o d y of 2d b e e n e x e r c i s i n g de the implied So. care i s dependent, the a l l e g i n g a pure c h i l d r e n w o u l d be custodians parents' future any dissenting). complaints months, of child within (Moore, i n the t h e y had the relinquishment their my as for that R.H., contained the the a claim need I maintained a l s o T.T.T. v . with by that 541-42. 999 d i s s e n t i n g ) ; see Consistent "in c i r c u i t courts. J., interests at is state a controversy jurisdiction the 2d such a l l e g a t i o n s negate Hence, to the 2080941 complaints do not a juvenile court dispute, which authority I to c o n s t i t u t e dependency p e t i t i o n s , could the adjudicate; trial court, which they a l l e g e a pure as a circuit only custody court, had the adjudicate. point out, comment, t h a t that d i d not acknowledging, a l l e g e the without of the c h i l d r e n , the m a j o r i t y s i l e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t s the h o l d i n g in I believe that contradiction w i l l and the bar separating a custodians by dependency J.W. the however, similar dispute cases and and custody, resolved and holding by due a circuit children that to the a line of by allegedly custodian custody with unfit o v e r r u l i n g J.W. or abandonment by, pure when f a c e d a complaint a l l e g e s t h a t he i n which that states jurisdictional c i r c u i t courts that dispute facto custodian caring for a child a parent, by bench proper regarding I would r e s o l v e w h i c h a de such the juvenile courts custody parents. regarding o n l y confuse the or petition she is and in properly or u n f i t n e s s of, seeks a c o n t i n u a t i o n of dispute be that should court. Unfitness The custody c o n c e p t o f " u n f i t n e s s " has jurisprudence since at 40 been r o o t e d least 1860 when i n our our childsupreme 2080941 court stated: "So s t r o n g i s t h e p r e s u m p t i o n , t h a t ' t h e c a r e w h i c h i s p r o m p t e d by t h e p a r e n t a l i n s t i n c t , and r e s p o n d e d t o by f i l i a l a f f e c t i o n , i s most v a l u a b l e o f a l l ' ; and so g r e a t i s the reluctance of the court to separate a c h i l d of tender years from those who a c c o r d i n g t o t h e o r d i n a r y l a w s o f human n a t u r e , m u s t f e e l t h e g r e a t e s t a f f e c t i o n f o r i t , and take the deepest interest in i t s welfare, -that the parental authority w i l l not be interfered with, e x c e p t i n case of gross m i s c o n d u c t , or where, from some other cause, the parent wants either the c a p a c i t y o r t h e means f o r t h e p r o p e r n u r t u r e and training of the child. Where a c o n t e s t for the custody of a c h i l d a r i s e s between i t s f a t h e r or m o t h e r and a t h i r d p e r s o n , t h e s u p e r i o r c l a i m o f t h e p a r e n t o u g h t n o t , i n o u r o p i n i o n , t o be d i s t u r b e d , u n l e s s i t p l a i n l y appears t h a t the i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e q u i r e i t t o be s e t a s i d e . W h e n e v e r i t i s shown t h a t the parent is guilty of gross i l l t r e a t m e n t or c r u e l t y towards h i s i n f a n t c h i l d r e n , or t h a t h i s conduct or d o m e s t i c a s s o c i a t i o n s are such t h a t the c h i l d r e n c a n n o t a s s o c i a t e w i t h him without moral contamination, i t i s the d u t y of the c o u r t to i n t e r f e r e f o r t h e i r p r o t e c t i o n , and to appoint a s u i t a b l e p e r s o n t o t a k e c a r e o f them and superintend their education." Striplin v. Ware, 36 87, the court omitted). In refused to remove c h i l d r e n f r o m mother and evidence Striplin, Ala. their in this stepfather 89-90 the (citations affirmed a judgment custody of their because, the court held: show t h a t mother i s , e i t h e r p h y s i c a l l y or m e n t a l l y , incapable of proper at of these children." 41 insufficient 36 Ala. 90. that natural to care case i s w h o l l y (1860) "The the taking 2080941 Over the the years, principles finding clear 980 s e t out and convincing 2d 401, 632-33 404 such and this state have also by See, ( A l a . 2007); ( A l a . 1986); has Ex p a r t e Chandler Ex (1957) and parte ("'A finding improved N.E.2d 747, 1951))); 771, Phillips, 772 mistakes, 266 conduct.'" v. Sessions, but t h i s 254 mother should child."); So. 2d removed and i s p r e s e n t l y a b l e and B o r s d o r f v. M i l l s , 338, from 340-41 the ( C i v . App. custody of made 42 v. So. 2d 238 A l a . 2d 77, Common 48 to take 49 A l a . A p p . a 102 Pleas So. the child of becoming a f o r the 658, 661-62, n a t u r a l parent 2d grievous to care Today, 79 by changed mistakes, reasonably of Lockard, 524, indications 1973). a So. ( C t . Of n o t be s u f f i c i e n t f r o m t h e m o t h e r i f t h e m o t h e r shows good mother 95 A l a . 522, has 494 circumstances. be s u p e r s e d e d 549 Abs. A.R.S., fitness current Law Edwards ("The the Lockard Ohio on The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s (quoting 63 (1950) Ex p a r t e A l a . 1 98 , 2 0 0 , 748, express premised Whatley, that o f u n f i t n e s s may an Terry, v. (1939). recognized strengthened t o be e.g., p a r e n t must be m e a s u r e d b y t h e p a r e n t ' s See only requiring a finding evidence. 2 0 6 , 2 0 8 - 0 9 , 189 S o . 7 5 1 , 7 5 3 - 5 4 of court in Striplin of u n f i t n e s s , w i t h So. 628, our supreme a child when may a 275 be trial 2080941 court expressly clear and c o n v i n c i n g unfit to properly So. finds that nonparent evidence care 2d a t 632-33. a that established the parent f o r the c h i l d . However, has i s currently Ex p a r t e 4 the substantive Terry, meaning term " u n f i t n e s s " c a r r i e s with i t t h e same c o n n o t a t i o n did in Striplin at the time the opinion inability or unwillingness properly f o r t h e needs clothing, shelter, on t h e p a r t of h i s or medical care, was children education, 494 of the that i t released of a parent her by to -- an provide for food, nurturing, and protection. I cannot concur that have been c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e d custodians or The the t r i a l court reasonably could from the evidence presented by t h e t h a t t h e m o t h e r c u r r e n t l y d e m o n s t r a t e s an unwillingness evidence to properly i s undisputed meet t h e n e e d s that, until inability of her c h i l d r e n . her illnesses, the U n d e r Ex p a r t e T e r r y_, a p a r e n t a l s o may l o s e c u s t o d y t o , a a n o np a r e n t i f t h e p a r e n t h a s v o l u n t a r i l y f o r f e i t e d c u s t o d y o f parent the c h i l d . 494 So. 2d a t 632. In t h i s case, the t r i a l court found t h a t the mother had not v o l u n t a r i l y f o r f e i t e d her c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s b y a l l o w i n g t h e c u s t o d i a n s t o assume t h e c a r e of the c h i l d r e n d u r i n g her i l l n e s s e s . The c u s t o d i a n s d i d n o t f i l e a c r o s s - a p p e a l as t o t h a t f i n d i n g , s o i t i s now t h e l a w of t h e case t h a t the mother d i d not v o l u n t a r i l y f o r f e i t her rights to the custody of the c h i l d r e n . See generally N o r a n d a l , U.S.A., I n c . v . G r a b e n , 18 So. 3d 405, 410 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 00 9) . 4 43 2080941 mother p r o v i d e d two or not only proper, children with other When the the father. requirements finally mother s p e c i a l needs, o f t e n a i d from medical without The m o t h e r properly staved caring t o t h e need A l l of those and n u r t u r i n g Admittedly, f o r the c h i l d r e n . during her i l l n e s s e s , aunt and f a i l i n g s h e was does n o t s u g g e s t t h a t their that but that without money only convalescing. the mother offered the custodians real i t for bills evidence support been Even is undisputed testified t h a t she e i t h e r saved t h e or items f o r the c h i l d r e n . suspected the evidence 44 with the the evidence i t , and t h e mother as t o t h e m o t h e r ' s duplicated. some f o r the c h i l d r e n a b u s e c o n s i s t s o f one p o s i t i v e m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e not made the c h i l d r e n out of The e v i d e n c e to provide refused However, swindled c o n t r a d i c t i o n o r impeachment or used a her condition to to consistently v i s i t Social Security benefits. t h e mother f o r by evidence the mother the while the mother. -- m o s t n o t a b l y , m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g children care, cared strongly poor choices paternal o f f h e r own f o r medical actions f o r these financial aid f o r t h e c h i l d r e n t o be p r o p e r l y custodians. concerned while succumbing arranged but exemplary, care The illegal-drug t e s t , which had implying that the 2080941 mother may evidence have abused indicating legal that such ability of the mother to care Wester, 500 that So. 2d illegal-drug detrimental change of on by remained child, the i n her care to have the whom s h e has abuse not See returned to the mother's department of human suspicious c u s t o d y of the drug-test a capability t o meet t h e i r mother's the also defies trial children other court with logic y e t was her that along during the live-in the with spring p.m. m o t h e r was break, 45 for special protection of fitness to deemed u n f i t by v i s i t a t i o n with to Sunday at unsupervised for paramour. given unsupervised f r o m F r i d a y a t 6:00 weekend, holidays, recognizes mother c h i l d r e n at i s s u e , of children and results. to f i n d t h a t the two the resources the It a i n f a n t , was for a state court child justify that demonstrated third a shows i n the her have evidence a s t a t e agency s p e c i a l i z i n g raise to itself needs, w h i l e welfare v. (implying shown in the Wester 1986) been any impaired children. not with the a f t e r the seems i n c o n g r u e n t is unfit has fact, an local coupled ( A l a . C i v . App. that In not alleged children will custody). custody is f o r her 1107 use impact mother's t h i r d It 1106, drugs 6:00 visitation three weeks p.m. on the every certain during the 2080941 summer, and a t a l l o t h e r agree. That judgment r e s u l t s unrestricted a year. 1056, custody As t h i s 1058 times the p a r t i e s i n an " u n f i t " parent court noted visitation, i n Slaton 1996), "[d]uring the noncustodial should consider whether the n o n c u s t o d i a l parent divorce during judgment i n which should that the noncustodial custody obviously evidence "the t r i a l Id. court i s f i t to care The visitation case reads e x a c t l y l i k e trial court exercise primary parent becomes t h e should concludes any that the p h y s i c a l custody but contact with that have l i b e r a l a r e f i t , and t h e d e c i s i o n as t o p r i m a r y rests solely awarding a of S u c h j u d g m e n t s a r e b a s e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n children. both parents award, the v i s i t a t i o n . " of the judgment i n t h i s c u s t o d i a l parent the visitation period s a f e t y and w e l f a r e . " i n fashioning provision a 682 S o . 2 d a parent Thus, the c h i l d exercising v. S l a t o n , person s o l e l y responsible f o r the c h i l d ' s for mutually o f t h e c h i l d r e n f o r a m i n i m u m o f 93 d a y s ( A l a . C i v . App. unsupervised to which the mother must not of any r e a l on t h e b e s t such have i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . visitation been safety that would j u s t i f y preventing physical rights, clearly concerns the t r i a l convinced regarding from By court the the c h i l d r e n the mother from e x e r c i s i n g t h e i r 46 2080941 custody 651 , f o r extended periods. 672 ( A l a . 2005) dissenting the i n part) f a t h e r was (Lyons, ("Indeed, awarded v e r y v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d , is so J., G.C., concurring under 924 in the t r i a l specific So. part court's and l i b e r a l 2d and order, unsupervised c e r t a i n l y an a n o m a l o u s the mother i s presently c h i l d r e n c a n n o t be d i s p u t e d . perform her p a r e n t a l evidence months duties regarding that children result allowed clearly convince the i f he custodians t o assume t h a t not. I the that the visitation as revealing unfitness; instruct i t s own respectfully I court Because dissent. a would t o award majority the s i x her fact-finder that the of care? unfit, reverse custody the to and I think support I a construe of the t r i a l regarding of Could for is insufficient i s presently admirably during to same l e v e l misgivings therefore, f o r her care p r o v i s i o n s of the judgment the t r i a l mother. evidence the mother care question. behavior a reasonable i s unable finding to appears beyond the mother's she believe willing That she d i d f o r y e a r s mother the Ex p a r t e unfit."). That the See court i t s finding of judgment and the of the c h i l d r e n to court disagrees, I 5 Because I would reverse the custody aspects of the j u d g m e n t , I p r e t e r m i t any d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e m o t h e r ' s argument that the t r i a l court e r r e d i n separating the c h i l d r e n . 5 47

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.